Re: [getf] Node MUST process? (was: [GETF] okay, here's an updateddraftwithHenrik's option B)

LOL !

... but I like it! (I just now hope noone will disagree!)

Maybe a final minor tweak, mainly for consistency:
    s/SOAP receiving node/SOAP receiver/

Jean-Jacques.

Christopher Ferris wrote:

> Jean-Jacques,
>
> The SOAP processing model specifies[1] how a SOAP receiving node processes[2] a
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^
> SOAP message. It applies to a single message only, in isolation from
> any other SOAP message. The SOAP processing model itself does not[3]
> maintain any state or perform any correlation or coordination between
> messages[4], even, for example, when used in combination with a feature
> which involves sending multiple SOAP messages in sequence, each subsequent
> message depending on the response to the previous message. It is the
> responsibility of each such features to define such combined[5]
> processing.
>
> How 'bout the one minor tweak. Again, this constitutes my main concern
> in that SOAP process rules have nothing to say about what a SOAP sending
> node does with the message.
>
>  > [2] I like "processing" better than "receiving" here. I think it's up to
>  > the MEP to specify what happens when a message is received. IMO, the
>  > processing model is concerned by the processing of messages only, not by
>  > their reception.
>
> I think I disagree. SOAP has nothing to say about processing a SOAP
> message as it is being sent, or am I missing something fundamental?
>
> Cheers?
>
> Chris
> Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> >
> > Close. How about the following minor tweaks:
> >
> > The SOAP processing model specifies[1] how a SOAP node processes[2] a
> > SOAP message. It applies to a single message only, in isolation from any
> > other SOAP message. The SOAP processing model itself does not[3]
> > maintain any state or perform any correlation or coordination between
> > messages[4], even, for example, when used in combination with a feature
> > which involves sending multiple SOAP messages in sequence, each
> > subsequent message depending on the response to the previous message. It
> > is the responsibility of each such features to define such combined[5]
> > processing.
> >
> > Jean-Jacques.
> >
> > [1] I don't remember whether there was any introductory context. In any
> > case, I thought an extra introductory sentence was necessary.
> >
>  > [2] I like "processing" better than "receiving" here. I think it's up to
>  > the MEP to specify what happens when a message is received. IMO, the
>  > processing model is concerned by the processing of messages only, not by
>  > their reception.
> >
> > [3] I think the active is more appropriate than the passive here.
> >
> > [4] "between messages" may not be necessary.
> >
> > [5] I am unuse of the adjective to use here. I think we need to say
> > point out to features as being the place where you define such
> > functionality; but maybe you will think this should go into the MEP
> > section section?
> >
> >> So, with that, here is a slight tweak:
> >>
> >>     The SOAP processing model applies to a SOAP node
> >>     receiving a single message only, in isolation
> >>     from any other SOAP message. There is no state,
> >>     correlation or coordination at the SOAP processing
> >>     model level, even, for example if using a feature
> >>     which involves sending multiple messages in
> >>     sequence, each subsequent message depending on
> >>     the response to the previous message.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 09:35:56 UTC